Study aid, not legal advice. caselaw is not a law firm and does not provide legal advice or engage in the unauthorized practice of law (UPL). All briefs, outlines, and citation tools on these pages are educational summaries for law students; they are not a substitute for advice from a licensed attorney admitted in your jurisdiction. Bar-admission rules vary by state. For court filings or client matters, verify every authority against the official reporter and your court's local rules. Use of caselaw does not create an attorney-client relationship.
Andrew T. FLETCHER, Trustee in Bankruptcy of New Jersey Tube Co., Appellant, v. B. LISSBERGER & CO., Appellee, 1925 — 4 F.2d 1017 · caselaw · US
Contracts · MBE-tested
Andrew T. FLETCHER, Trustee in Bankruptcy of New Jersey Tube Co., Appellant, v. B. LISSBERGER & CO., Appellee
4 F.2d 1017·United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit·1925
Before BUFFINGTON and WOOLLEY, Circuit Judges, and MORRIS, District Judge.
Brief incoming
Hand-reviewed Bluebook brief (procedural posture, facts, issue, holding, reasoning, dissent) ships once the AI generation pipeline runs through this case. Join the waitlist to get notified when 1L briefs go live.
Opinion
Andrew T. FLETCHER, Trustee in Bankruptcy of New Jersey Tube Co., Appellant, v. B. LISSBERGER & CO., Appellee.
(Circuit Court of Appeals, Third Circuit.
April 7, 1925.)
No. 3271.
Appeal from the District Court of the United States for the District of New Jersey; Joseph L. Bodine, Judge.
Bilder & Bilder, of Newark, N. J. (Samuel Kaufman and Nathan Bilder, both of Newark, N. J., of counsel), for appellant. Feiner, Maass & Skutch, of New York City (Ira Skuteh and Benjamin F. Feiner, both of New York City, of counsel), for appellee.
Before BUFFINGTON and WOOLLEY, Circuit Judges, and MORRIS, District Judge.
[MAJORITY — PER CURIAM.]
PER CURIAM.
This case involves two claims made by Lissberger & Co., against the bankrupt estate. No principles of law or observance of precedents are involved, but simply the construction of agreements incident to this case. The court below allowed both claims. After studying the record, and on due consideration had, we agree with its conclusion, and therefore affirm its decree.